|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 24, 2013, 11:00 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I had an opportunity to talk to a chief and then the rank and file.
The chief thought that armed self-defense by citizens was the silliest thing ever. The officers thought it was just fine and the AWB was stupid. Of course, the chief's boss hated guns.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 24, 2013, 11:24 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Out of curiosity, is the Chief appointed or elected?
I feel like politically motivated persons are more likely to feel anti-gun in LE
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
June 24, 2013, 11:48 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Chiefs are almost always appointed by the mayor/city manager. Sheriffs are almost always elected.
|
June 24, 2013, 05:12 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Finally got around to reading the complaint, and I agree with you. Very interesting choice. Kopel is all kinds of smart, and I think he made a great call here. If you've had a stroke or whatever, and certain movements are very slow or difficult, reloading becomes a real issue. Reducing the capacity of magazines thus becomes a clear burden on the disabled, who can least afford to be burdened, negatively impacting their ability to defend themselves in a disproportionate way to the rest of us, who have the potential to reload very quickly. |
|
June 24, 2013, 05:28 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
If successful on the ADA issue, I would be concerned that is could result only in a narrow waiver for the infirmed. While that would obviously be a good thing, it could be addressed with a narrow exception.
|
June 24, 2013, 09:11 PM | #31 |
Member
Join Date: August 11, 2009
Location: A Calguns Interloper
Posts: 39
|
But then you'd have an equal protection question, no? Turn it around. What if a person that has an auditory sensitivity disability was allowed the legal use of a suppressor (without a tax stamp or allowed use within a State (CA) that bans them) , while at the same time, denying it's use by a deaf person (no need) Maybe a bad example, but you get the point. If they go down that road, shall we say slippery slope?
|
June 24, 2013, 09:18 PM | #32 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
So if they strike it down, the legislature will have to get all the political capital together to create / pass a new law, featuring the waiver (assuming the ADA issue is the only problem with the bill). That might not be so easy, esp given the recall and this suit...I could see plenty of unsteady seats not wanting to sign back on... Quote:
|
||
July 18, 2013, 10:57 PM | #33 |
Member
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 91
|
UPDATE: Attorney General backs down on two aspects of the new Colorado laws
After the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff's attorney (for the Sheriffs) applied for preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of a couple of narrow aspects of the new laws, laws which only took effect on 1 July 2013.
The requested preliminary injunction was to halt the overreach of the magazine language “designed to be readily converted” to hold more than 15 rounds (per House Bill 1224, the magazine ban), and the language on “continuous possession” of firearms/magazines (per House Bill 1229, background checks and paperwork on temporary loans and private sales of firearms) Sheriff's attorney, Dave Kopel, argued that both were unconstitutionally vague, and that what meaning it did have (according to the Attorney General) violated the Second Amendment. Well, on July 10th, the attorney general backed down, and issued formal legal guidance to Colorado law enforcement folks that accepted the argument of the Sheriffs on those two narrow issues. An important, even if only partial, victory. Now the case will move forward on the other issues, but these two have been resolved in favor of reasonableness and the Second Amendment. Two cheers for that! Here is more detail: http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/15/suc...mendment-case/ |
July 20, 2013, 03:18 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 1,057
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason |
|
November 28, 2013, 07:18 PM | #35 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Colorado sheriff Lawsuit , Judge ruled against group lawsuit!
I have been aware of the new Colorado gun laws and several suits but I was not aware of the sheriffs lawsuit until I read an article on the judges ruling.
From what I gather several sheriffs across Colorado got together to file a law suit against the state of Colorado and its new laws calling them unconstitutional. Quote:
Apparently the judge ruled against them as a group but said they could file individually. Quote:
Quote:
So to sum this up, a citizen group can, or individuals, or sheriffs as individuals but not as a group. So long as the group is not made up of all sheriffs they are allowed to file because they would be: Quote:
I understand that there are several twist on similar laws from state to state. So what is in Colorado law that prevents Sheriffs from joining in a law suit made up of all sheriffs? Providing the suit is personal in nature and not job related it would seem they would have the same rights as any citizen group would it not? Guess that depends on what is in Colorado law. The complaint in the suit against the state filed by Sheriffs : Quote:
I need a different perspective here I guess because from where I am standing this whole ruling seems silly.
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario! |
|||||
November 28, 2013, 08:53 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
|
It is a bit of a guess but the problem might be because this is probably the same group of sheriffs that banded together to say that they would not enforce the new gun laws, in part because they felt they are unenforceable.
One of the sheriffs is an old friend of mine. I will be going home for Christmas and will ask him about it. Maybe I can get a clearer picture of the whole thing. If I talk to him sooner I will let you know what he has to say.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time. No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it. |
November 28, 2013, 09:08 PM | #37 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
New Thread merged with the original thread.
In the case, Parker v. California (case #22 in the list), the CA court of appeals recently ruled for the plaintiffs, in its entirety. This is now a citable case, inasmuch as Sheriff Clay Parker sued the State in his official capacity. The CA courts held that he had standing, in his professional capacity, in enforcement of vague laws. The Judge here, says the Sheriffs have suffered no harm, in their official capacity, other than not knowing how to enforce a vague law (the Judge accepts the CO AG's "Technical Guidance," even though this can be changed at a whim). This decision is appeallable. Whether or not this is appealed, is up to the Sheriffs and their attorney (David Kopel). If it is, by the Courts own timeline, it must be done within 14 days, or the lawsuit proceeds without them. If appealed, all action at the District Court stops, until the CA10 renders its opinion (technically, the Sheriffs have the same 90 days to appeal the decision as any other case would. Practicality deems 14 days). The docket has been updated and the decision (doc #96) has been recapped. |
November 28, 2013, 10:41 PM | #38 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Thanks Al , Search terms did not give me a hit.
Quote:
Quote:
That was the reasoning behind my questioning then. Not now, or yet should I say until I read a little more on the contents of the suit. Quote:
Even if the wording of the suit was surrounding LE, the vagueness of it as written, as well as it's affect on ability to implement it fairly, the judges decision to not change the law does nothing more to help LE do it's job with confidence. In a since it kicked the can down the road. I say that with the understanding it may not necessarily be the judges duty to change it because of the circumstances of the suit. But that is the problem with the legislature. It is just an arm of government with a function to do what an arm does. Frustrating.
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario! |
|||
November 28, 2013, 11:30 PM | #39 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Search terms within vBulletin are iffy, at best.
I know it's probably asking a lot, but all these cases are in the stickied Current 2A Cases thread, at the top of the index. Tucked into posts 2 through 6 are all the cases being tracked (20 cases per post), their entry points into the legal system (for those that have PACER accounts), their docket entries and any thread that is on topic for that case. These are all links and are highly useful for anyone concerned about the status of a specific case. |
November 29, 2013, 12:01 AM | #40 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 8, 2005
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 2,119
|
It's become a sad state of affairs in America....
Government screw ups and oppression require citizens to file lawsuits, often spending millions of tax payer dollars on one or both sides of the lawsuit... I'd like the losers of these suits to be fired and jailed and have personal responsibility for the debts incurred. That would slow down these government encroachments and screw-ups. |
November 29, 2013, 02:20 PM | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Original Filing by Sheriffs
Quote:
It seems from reading the complaint that it was their intent to complain about the effects of the law and how it inhibits them to do their job/duty (answering my previous question). The judges ruling Quote:
Seems to me that the only option left for the sheriffs is to file individually if they wish to have the state hear a complaint. Also if they file individually, they need to change their original complaint to avoid a similar ruling on an individual level would they not? The Question remains, if the sheriffs complaint had not been job related and filed as a group would they still have been denied and forced to file as individuals in order to have their suit heard? Given the likelihood that the most reasonable course of action would have been the original complaint, what real option is left to them? Again being LE what legal recourse do they have to satisfy their complaint on the vagueness of the new law and it's effect on the ability to due their job fairly and without prejudice if the state in essence shut the door? When a law is this defunct the only outcome is this kind of calamity.
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario! |
||
November 29, 2013, 09:22 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 3, 2005
Posts: 107
|
Why couldn't they form their own groups like "Colorado Sheriffs For Gun Rights"
Why couldn't they form their own groups like "Colorado Sheriffs For Gun Rights" and file that way; this was suggested to me on another forum.
Cnon |
April 1, 2014, 11:45 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2004
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 403
|
The case (Civil Action No. 13-Cv-1300-MSK-MJW) went to court Monday. Let's hope for the best.
The Independence Institute put up a tracking page at http://coloradoguncase.org/ - is there a better place to follow what happens? |
April 1, 2014, 04:31 PM | #44 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
That's probably as good a place as any.
This one has fallen between the cracks in my cases list. Sorry for that. |
Tags |
2a lawsuit , colorado anti-gun bills , david kopel , independence institute |
|
|